So what does that have to do with apple forcing developers to use a specific set of tools/sdks?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Facing Antitrust Inquiry Over Flash-to-iPhone Compiler Ban?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So what does that have to do with apple forcing developers to use a specific set of tools/sdks?
Can you choose between several local mafias or is there only one that will break your kneecap?
This was in relation to the Flash arguement which has sprung up yet again - which it shouldn't have in the thread.
This is not only about Flash. The EULA also prohibits third party tools like MonoTouch which produce NATIVE applications - but with MonoTouch, the developer can program in C# and also has full access to .NET APIs. But since the EULA does not allow C#, in theory this tool cannot be used anymore.
Same goes for Unity3D - a cross platform game development environment that also produces NATIVE apps on each supported platform: Wii, Mac, PC, iPhone and soon the Xbox 360 and others to come. Unity can also be programmed in C# and it is based upon Mono.
Other NATIVE compiler vendors who either already ship or are planning to develop a compiler for the iPhone OS are also hit by this EULA.
And, frankly speaking, I doubt that this EULA is legal at all. It's like saying if you want to use our platform, your application's display language must be, let's say, Lithuanian. We won't accept your mother tongues French or German or English. It's not only ridiculous, it's also highly discriminating. And in the case of Apple's EULA, the ONLY reason why this EULA exists is to wipe out unwanted competition and to force developers to use Apple's own tool kits.
Do you think General Motors would get away with it when they forced their customers to buy tires and gas only from them? I don't think so.
Exactly... but don't expect majority of forum posters over here to understand what you are saying
BTW, if rumours are indeed true, Apple should loose BIG time in court!
All Adobe needs to do is to demo 100+ apps already available in app store that are made with Flash to prove that compiler indeed is working perfectly fine.
In fact - case is soooo blatant and obvious that no time should be wasted in courtroom at all...
And how exactly would you be able to install other browsers without using a browser in the first place? Safari needs to be preinstalled in order to get to the web to download another one. It's the same when you buy a new PC, Internet Explorer is preinstalled. The average consumer doesn't keep extra web browsers on a thumb drive.
Bingo! Apple has a monopoly in the app market. They control something like 90%+ of this market. This is separate and distinct from the smartphone market, where Apple don't have a monopoly. Apple are using it's monopoly on the app market to dictate what tools developers can use to make apps. This is an abuse of their position, and should rightfully be stopped.
And this is important for the end user exactly how?
So many people develop Objective C now. So I'm sure if there is a way to build a better app in that language, someone will do it. And people will like that app better and ignore the cross-compiled app.
The worst thing that could happen for Apple is having to allow cross-platform compliers. However, they could simply require developers utilizing these technologies to post a large disclaimer on their app's home page stating something to help purchasers understand the potential issues with these development tactics.
Same argument runs for Explorer and yet you have to be offered the choice. I personally never use explorer on my PC, for instance.
*sigh*
Microsoft: monopoly + abuse, both according to US + EU antitrust law (and other countries as well). Oh and they made and make so many billions with it, you have trouble counting it. The EU fine was just a minor nuisance for the balance sheet.
Apple: no monopoly
So, where are those alleged similarities again?
The change in the agreement doesn't force developers into only developing for iphone.... nothing is stopping them from learning to develop for other platforms.
Why does our government insist on sticking their noses into places that it should not be. If you do something extraordinary then you get punished because your competition thinks it's not fair that you are doing something better than they can.
This would be like if we stopped teaching french in schools and saying that by learning french that blocks people from learning spanish. it's a load of BS
Why does our government insist on sticking their noses into places that it should not be. If you do something extraordinary then you get punished because your competition thinks it's not fair that you are doing something better than they can.
This would be like if we stopped teaching french in schools and saying that by learning french that blocks people from learning spanish. it's a load of BS
Get Over it!
Adobe better have roadmap for HTML5. As a programmer, I totally agree with Apple's decision. Adding a third-party middle layer can/will result in future incompatibility and stability...then who will suffer? The iPhone users and the programmers...so?
Get over it. I learnt Object-C gone through XCode and now life goes on...
Adobe better have roadmap for HTML5. As a programmer, I totally agree with Apple's decision. Adding a third-party middle layer can/will result in future incompatibility and stability...then who will suffer? The iPhone users and the programmers...so?
Get over it. I learnt Object-C gone through XCode and now life goes on...
Exactly... but don't expect majority of forum posters over here to understand what you are saying
BTW, if rumours are indeed true, Apple should loose BIG time in court!
All Adobe needs to do is to demo 100+ apps already available in app store that are made with Flash to prove that compiler indeed is working perfectly fine.
In fact - case is soooo blatant and obvious that no time should be wasted in courtroom at all...
No, it is NOT native. Packager exports a monolithic "executable" which actually consists of a Flash runtime (iPhone native itself) that interpretes the flash code, and resources. There have been reports that "Hello World" class minimal apps take 8MB or more.
This whole move stinks of demagogy, and the final outcome will be an iPhone experience akin to win32.
But I don't care any more. I'll keep using the right tools for the job. In the long run, quality apps should prevail.
Monopoly? Mafia? Does anyone know what a monopoly is?
RIGHT! The 'particular product or service' in this case, is Smart Cell Phones.
Apple does NOT have a monopoly on Smartphones.
So how is Apple forcing App developers to code for Apple's products? Could they not code for RIM or Android? Where's the problem?
Oh, Apple is being mean to those that want in on the iPhone gravy train of apps without playing by Apple's rules! Cry me a gravy river.
I don't think you need to necessarily defend the apps themselves or their quality to defend their right to exist.
As you say, if the alternatives are better, those should prevail. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be given a fighting chance to be marketed...
of course you don't have to use every single API, i was merely stating that some API's that you could use to write your program in may not be taken advantage of if when the code is converted. The point is though is that come iPhone OS 4.0 if flash converted apps don't take advantage of multi-tasking correctly and run poorly, then guess who people are going to blame? Not the dev's, but Apple.
Please don't get me wrong, i think that Apple is being a bit of a bully here, but i can understand why. Does it make it right? Most likely no, but they did create the product. They should be able to dictate how the program is written. What will be the tell tale sign is if they do reject other dev tools aside from Adobe. If they don't reject others, then Apple should be held accountable.